essay 1: reflections on "People's Movements, People's Press"

On the necessity of a social movement press

Why is a social movement press necessary? To try and answer this question, it may be helpful take a step back and look at the larger context in which a social movement (hereafter s.m.) press operates. By and large, the s.m. press, as discussed in Ostertag’s book, is largely reactionary in nature. That is, each s.m. press was a reaction to, and in many cases a reaction against, dominant forces operating in mainstream society. (The environmental movement seems to be the exception here, as it is both reactionary and pre-emptive in nature.) Examining the nature of those dominant forces reveals the nature of power itself, of how it works to enforce the status quo at the expense of those whose who are marginalized. If we consider this idea in relation to how the mainstream media operate, where it represents a kind of status quo, then we can readily conclude that there must be voices which are marginalized and do not have outlets in the dominant system. This, in essence, is why a s.m. press is necessary, to give voice to those denied one by the mainstream.

In looking at the social movement press as discussed in Ostertag’s book, several patterns reveal themselves. Specifically, this essay will look at four of those patterns: 1) the social movement press as a reactionary voice, 2) the relationship between a social movement’s goals and its longevity, 3) the role of the government in a social movement, and 4) the presence of a double-standard that emerged in some of the press of the abolitionist and civil rights movements.

The social movement press as a reactionary voice

As stated in the introduction, each s.m. press emerged as a reaction to/against dominant forces in mainstream society, forces that worked to prevent marginalized voices from being heard. As each s.m. press emerged, what kinds of voices were expressed in those movements? A short summary follows:

• The abolitionist press, which functioned to give a voice to those without one regarding such issues as the injustices of the slavery system, human rights violations resulting from the slavery system, voicing opposition to sending black slaves to Liberia, advocating pacifism, advocating armed rebellion, advocating the importance of education and literacy, engaging pro-slavery newspapers in debate, in short, spreading a wide spectrum of abolitionist ideals.
• The woman suffrage press, which was an historical outgrowth of the abolitionist press, gave voice to the woman suffrage movement, the goal of which was finally achieved in 1920. But in a larger sense, the woman suffrage press also functioned to set in motion the creation of a space in social consciousness that had yet not existed, a space which struggled to define itself because there was no adequate language to do so. Today, we know these ideas collectively as ‘feminism’, and the woman suffrage press planted the seeds for its fruition.
• The underground GI press, which gave a voice to those in the military who were against the Vietnam War. This movement, almost entirely ignored by the mainstream press, included a wide range of voices such as encouraging active resistance from within the military, interviews with and stories from soldiers in the field who talked about the atrocities, realities and insanities of the war, picking a free speech fight with the Pentagon, documenting dissent within the military and serving as an organizing tool for opposition.
• The gay and lesbian press, which was probably the most suppressed voice of all, gave voice to those whose identity itself was repressed by society for many many years. That is, the identity of a slave, or someone who opposed slavery, a woman who fought for suffrage, or a soldier who voiced opposition to the war, was not called into question per se by societal norms. But the identity of someone who was ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’ or ‘homosexual’ was called into question, to the degree that, at the onset of the movement, it was a criminal act to publicly identity oneself as such. It is in that sense that the voices of the gay and lesbian press were harshly repressed, and that repression provided the impetus for the growth of the movement for many years to come.

The relationship between goals and longevity

Ostertag points out that, contrary to what one might think, the birth of a journal usually precedes the formation of a social movement, not vice versa. But what about the opposite case? That is, when does a s.m. press typically come to an end? Interestingly enough, ‘the end’ usually occurs when the s.m. achieves its goals. (It should be pointed out that ‘the end’ can have at least two meanings here—the literal sense, in which the journal stops publication altogether, or the goal-oriented sense, meaning that the journal significantly changes its character/focus after entering the mainstream.) In some ways, this is to be expected. If we consider again that a major function of the s.m. press is to give voice to those without one, it is also necessary to consider what happens when those voices are finally able to enter into the currents of mainstream society. From this point of view, the s.m. press functions as a kind of vehicle, one which brings those voices that are on the fringes of society into the mainstream, and once a s.m. press does this, it has achieved what it initially set out to do. Looking at the cases in Ostertag’s book, it becomes clear that the more goal-oriented and focused a s.m. press is, the more likely that s.m. press will collapse once its goal is achieved. Examples include:

• The abolitionist press, the major papers being William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator and Fredrick Douglass’s The North Star, ended with the Civil War, when slavery was abolished.
• The woman suffrage press, which gained its momentum after the abolitionist movement came to an end, essentially disappeared after women’s suffrage was achieved in 1920.
• The gay/lesbian press ended in the 1990’s in the sense that the movement entered the mainstream, its readership was transformed into a market, and the g/l press became more lifestyle/glossy types than substantive journals dealing with core issues of identity and self-definition.

We can also look at this relationship in the inverse way, namely that the less specific the goals of a s.m. press are, the greater its longevity tends to be. Example:

• While the environmental movement press periodically focuses on issues of preservation and protection (e.g. preventing the damming of the Grand Canyon, protecting the Giant Sequoias, etc.), the overall goals of the movement are much larger in scope than other social movements. Is there a tangible point when the goals of the environmental movement will be achieved? It seems likely not. The environmental movement has evolved into a kind of institution in and of itself (consider the Sierra Club), a necessary step some would say to stay in the game for the long haul, to continue to try and raise awareness of an issue that our society as a whole is in deep denial about, i.e. the relationship between the lifestyles that we lead and the negative consequences of that lifestyle on the planet.

On the role of government: friend or foe?

What is the relationship between a social movement and the government? Do they work together to achieve shared goals, or are the two entities at odds? Unfortunately, social movements, if not at odds with the government from the outset, typically wind up being so at some point. This pattern holds true for at least two cases, the environmental and the civil rights movement.

• Until WWII, there was a shared perspective between the environmental movement and the government about the importance of the preservation and maintenance of America’s natural resources. (The government worked closely with the early environmental movement to establish many of our national parks, for example.) But this camaraderie broke down after WWII, when the government, which began pursuing more aggressive development and management practices, found itself at increasing odds with the environmental movement, which sought to protect and preserve that which the government wanted to develop.
• In the case of the civil rights movement, there was a fundamental shift that took place in the movement in the mid-1960s. Up until the early 60's, both the government and the mainstream press were viewed as part of the solution in bringing about change. But this changed in the mid-60's, when the government and the press became seen as more a part of the problem than the solution. It was at this point that a more radical black nationalist/liberation movement began to form, which found itself at increasing odds with the government, which began to infiltrate and heavily disrupt the movement (consider covert COINTELPRO operations…). In this case, the government had become a big foe of the movement, actively working against it instead of for it.

Double-standard or cognitive dissonance?

In the abolitionist and civil rights movement, there are several instances where a double-standard seems to have existed, either through the segregation of a readership, reliance on outside sources to convey a movement’s message, or the marginalization of voices within the movement itself. Examples include:

• During the abolitionist era, the readership of William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator was largely black; conversely, the readership of Fredrick Douglass’s The North Star was largely white. Why did this occur?
• During the civil rights movement, SNCC relied heavily on white liberal financial and institutional support (including the corporate/mainstream media) to get its message across. Thus, the movement had to jump through a kind of ‘white hurdle’ to get its message back to its own people. Going through that hurdle definitely affected the message, and some would say, even compromised it. Was this a kind of necessary evil?
• During the Vietnam War, Ostertag documents cases in which the Black Panther largely ignored/left unacknowledged the voices of black GI’s who had written to the paper seeking support, expressing solidarity, etc. Why did the Black Panther do this?

Was it institutional forces that caused these events to happen? Internal divisions? Or perhaps these incidents show how deeply entrenched racism is into the fabric of our society? The effect of this entrenchment may have created a kind of double standard that subjected parts of the abolitionist and civil rights movements to the same forces they were trying to fight against, and if one looks at the patterns in retrospect, a certain cognitive dissonance results. What does it tell us about human nature when we see that some of the very things being fought against wind up being part of the fight?

Insights and lessons

In reflecting on the history of the s.m. press in this country, it seems clear that the more goal-oriented a s.m. press is, the greater its potential impact is likely to be. As stated in the introduction, the goals of a s.m. represent marginalized voices that do not have a place in the mainstream, and the importance of a s.m. press is that it becomes a vehicle for their expression. The more clear-cut those goals are, the sharper they can cut and carve out a place for themselves in a society that is said to be based on the fundamental principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though one must always be wary that the status quo may, at times more often that not, trump those principles. This is the nature of the fight for those who choose to fight it, and the history of the s.m. press shows us that success is within our reach, but not without much sacrifice.